Please substantiate this assertion.
Yes, you do. I clearly stated, ". . . an experience as being, at least in part, magical . . ." in my proof, to which you responded with, ". . . everything is magical". If you are contending that my specification of "in part" is in error, then please substantiate it. As it stands, it appears you are trying to use equivocation to change what is being discussed.
That is not substantiating your assertion.
If you are not, as you state, committing equivocation, then please substantiate your replacement of "in part" with "everything".
Strawman: I never said pointing out that this is "argument vs. argument" was the double standard.
Strawman: I didn't say "opinion is evidence", although it sometimes may be, depending on the nature of the claim (your discussion with Tricky re: Hal, for example). In this particular case, I'm referring to authoritative sources on the history and meanings of words. Arguments from authority are perfectly valid when the source is, in fact, an authority on the subject in question.
That would depend on your definition of "undeclared atheists".
It's your assertion that they can't distinguish. Why don't you provide the evidence for this assertion.
And you're saying babies can't do this? Evidence?
Tricky said:
Claus, are you able to distinguish between magic and real things? If so, then by your own definition, you are a theist.
Could you point out where the need to believe in magic is included in your definition of theist, please?
But would they be atheists?
Who is this "we"? I have plenty of reasons to think otherwise. Babies don't start growing up at the moment they are born. They start growing up at the moment they are conceived. I can easily conceive that babies regard certain things as real rather than magical. And this gets back to the point again. As the baby's neurological system develops, it gains the power to have more and more complex thoughts. Over time, it will gain the ability to recognize the concept of god, in a very primitive sense at first, but more and more sophisticated as it grows up. But as you seem to have agreed (when you said a zygote is not an atheist), there is a time in the child's development when it is unable to hold this concept and therefore it is silly to call a zygote an atheist.
So it would seem. How can you possibly say, "I can't really add more to this," when you have been asked repeatedly to "add" a simple answer to a simple question. To me, that seems identical to the type of evasive behavior we tend to associate with True Believers.
A very good question. A good starting point would be to define the characteristics that would indicate sentience. Do you have a sentience checklist lying around?
Could you point out where in that definition the requirement "to be able to distinguish between magic and just one real thing" is, please?
So it's the belief in magic, rather than the ability to differentiate between magic and real things, that's the important factor?
But you would not use "non-luminous" to describe something unless there is some reason you might expect it to be luminous. You wouldn't say "he ate some non-luminous turkey necks". It would add nothing to the point you were trying to make. Sure, turkey necks are non-luminous, but so what? Similarly, speaking of "atheist rocks" adds nothing useful to the depiction of the rocks.
)I still disagree. I think atheism, weak or strong, is a philosophical position and it is incorrect (and useless) to assign a philosophical position to an entity incapable of holding one.
I have said before that it wasn't precluded (see post #10). I have said it is pointless or silly to call atheism "the default position". It adds nothing to our understanding of athiesm.
Not when someone has asked me a direct and simple question, sort of like the one I am now answering for you. I think it is the quite rude to respond to a question by indicating you will not answer the question, especially when the question requires only a short answer. All I have asked is what you think. You do know what you think, don't you? Are your thoughts so complex that you cannot possibly explain them to us?
Indeed. In fact, since so much of the population of the world is theistic, and since the notion of theism had to come from somewhere -- it's not a notion that one without an inclination towards it would have just come up with, therefore whoever came up with it probably had an inclination, a "hard-wiring", if you will, toward it -- then it's actually more evidence-based to take theism as the default position.
Unfortunately, the definition you are attempting to use is countered by Christian Fundamentalists who routinely state how every event, positive or negative, is the "will of God". Additionally, the above is post hoc rationalization on your part and it does not substantiate your claim that someone must be able to discern between magical thinking and reality in order to be a theist.